The Natural Disaster

     Hurricane Sandy has been a big topic in the U.S. lately, especially along the Eastern Coast. It has caused for so much attention because of how big and powerful the storm is expected to be. Connecticut Governor, Dan Malloy, even shared that, "this is the most catastrophic event that we have faced and been able to plan in any of our lifetimes". To add, the National Guard suspects that this giant storm will affect over 60 million people. With such a big disaster on its way the government has laid out very clear steps on what to know about the storm and how to prepare for it. For example, they explain where and when Sandy is expected to hit, Monday night near the coast. Also they clarify which people are most in danger, people from South Carolina all all the way up to Maine. This list continues to explain more how to prepare, what each state is doing individually to prepare, and what types of transportations are shut down.
      This clear and focused information the government is giving is a sharp contrast to the acts or laws that we are going over in class. The acts we have analyzed have been very vague and broad, like the Smith Act of 1940 and the Alien Sedition Act of 1789, because the government tries to protect the public. However, a natural disaster creates about the same if not more damage than a war. As such, I wonder why the government chooses to be so general and vague during times of war, but not during a natural disaster?

To read more about this article click here

The Great Debate of Cycling and Drugs

           Lance Armstrong, seven-time Tour de France winner, has been acknowledged and understood as a cyclist who has used blood booster erythropoietin, or EPO, according to this article from the New York Times. As such, Armstrong is no longer the chairman of his cancer foundation and has lost nearly all of is endorsements. Apparently, most of Armstrong’s teammates were also encouraged to follow similar patterns and use drugs to enhance their performance. Armstrong’s teammate, Floyd Landis, was among the first to admit to using drugs. Landis shared his story to the director of the Tour of California Cycling Race, Andrew Messick, in April 2010. Landis confessed that Armstrong and other riders were all involved in team-organized doping. Even David Zabriskie, a five-time national time trial champion, confessed his stories at the federal courthouse in Los Angeles. After hearing story after story, Tygart, Chief executive of the United States Anti-Doping Agency, and Bill Bock, the Anti-Doping Agency’s general counsel, said enough was enough. “[They] are here to dismantle the dirty system that still exists in cycling so this won’t happen to another rider again”.

                Hearing about all of this on the news was pretty depressing to me. I mean you hear all of these stories about Lance Armstrong overcoming cancer, and then becoming seven-time Tour de France winner, and it just brought so much inspiration and hope to people. But then to hear he has always used drugs to achieve these awards, and even encouraged his teammates to follow suit, brought a feeling of sadness and disappointment. Sports are a big part of American culture, no doubt about it, but using drugs to enhance ones performance should definitely not be part of the game. Now, Tygart and Bock previously mentioned that they wanted to “dismantle the dirty system that still exist in cycling”, but I wonder if they will be able to. I know their intentions are there, but do you think there will be execution? Or is the sport too far gone that there is no hope?

Romney's Success at the Debate...

Mitt Romney had a clear victory at the presidential debate a couple weeks ago. Ryan, Romney's running mate, also did well during his debate in Ohio. Although, Biden did pretty well also. In any case, these debates have really helped Romney and Ryan gain a lot more support, according to an article from CNN, Romney, Ryan Buoyed by Debates.



          People were a bit surprised by how poorly Obama did at the pat debate just because he is known for his orating. But thats just it, he is an orator, not a debater. Also, in the past years presidents who run for a second term tend to do worse in the debate. This is because they are more used to speaking to the public, than listening and debating with others. For example, when President George W. Bush was running for a second term against John Kerry, Bush did not do well in the first presidential debate. However, he came back and did quite well in the second debate, allowing him to be reelected. Now, if Obama does not step up his game for the upcoming debate on the sixteenth will he lose the election? How vital is it for Obama to win this debate?

The Social Media

In class we took two whole periods to discuss 9/11. A question that was mentioned  during class was: do we do  enough to honor/remember this day? An article from CNN, Remembering 9/11 on Twitter and Facebook, mentioned how there was no acknowledgement of 9/11 on the front page of the New York Times or the New York Times Post. When I first read this fact I was shocked. I mean how could such a popular news company not bother to put such a significant event, such as 9/11, on the front page? However, I continued to read. Later in the article it showed how social media, such as Twitter and Facebook, made a strong effort to acknowledge the eleventh anniversary of 9/11. Many fellow Americans would post on their wall or tweet something in honor of 9/11, like "Never Forget". At first, I was still a bit surprised to see that the social media took more initiative on acknowledging the anniversary of 9/11, than the New York Times. The New York Times public editor, Margaret Sullivan, even stated, "The pain, the outrage, and the loss---those never fade. The amount of journalism, however, must." While I still found it strange about the New York Times, I realized that social media has probably the same, or even more, of an impact as the New York Times does. Social media has become such a large part of American culture. I mean how often do you hear people say, "I have to go on Facebook?" Social Media has become so popular because it is just so easy to access and use. While it has become such a prominent thing in our everyday lives, I wonder is having a story on the front page give the same respect and acknowledgment as having the the story being shared on social media?

                                                    

A Student's First Amendment

We recently discussed the first amendment in class. We even took a quiz that portrayed different situations and we decided if it should be protected by the first amendment or if it is limited. A couple of the situations we discussed involved the sticky situation between students and the first amendment. It was concluded that students are allowed to express themselves in anyway as long as it is not a disturbance to the classroom environment. One situation that has recently occurred falls right under this category. Sara Dickenson, a senior at East Haddam high school, was considered a disturbance by wearing a breast-cancer sponsored bracelet that read, “Keep a Breast”. Many teachers found this writing to be to provocative. One teacher even threatened to give her a detention for wearing it. Dickenson believed that this was a violation of her first amendment. She wore the bracelet in honor of her grandmother who died of breast cancer. Dickenson wanted to spread awareness. The American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut seemed to agree with Sara, and argued that her bracelet had no disturbance in the classroom environment. Sara also mentioned that, “… kids in [her] school walk around with hair that is absolutely neon pink… well, [she] really feels that neon pink hair is much more of a disturbance than a white bracelet.” Now, the final ruling from the US Supreme Court clearly states that, “School officials may forbid speech only when it threatens to materially or substantially interfere with the operation of the school”. And, as such, after two years, East Haddam officials finally allowed Sara to freely wear the bracelet. Now to me, this whole situation seemed unnecessary because I feel Sara was never a disturbance to the classroom environment. However, I do see the teacher’s point, but I do wonder where do you draw the line for something to be considered a disturbance in the school? A bracelet with provocative writing? Neon pink hair? Or even a shirt with provocative writing?

Americans and Football

Sunday nights are usually dedicated to watching football on the T.V. in most households. It is even stated in the article, In N.F.L., the Show Goes On and On, that the most watched T.V. show this past T.V. season was NBC’s “Sunday Night Football”. However, many football fans are starting to complain about the pace of the game. By that I mean there is too much stopping and starting in the game due to the replacement officials, thus interrupting the flow of the game. The officials constantly stop time to either huddle to discuss calls; or talk to sideline officials, or even go over incorrect yardage mark offs. In the past two weeks the average game time was three hours and fourteen minutes, about a half an hour longer than expected. Basically the officials, as Even Jon Gruden, an ESPN analyst, stated were, “taking a long time to organize justice here”. All of the “discussing” between the officials slows down the game tremendously, and many Americans are not happy about it.

What I find most interesting about this situation is how Americans have a need to be constantly entertained. Even football, a pretty violent and upbeat sport, can seem boring when there isn’t constant action being shown. If nothing exciting is being illustrated on the screen, like officials just talking, or a commercial being played, Americans tend to either switch the channel or find something more interesting to do because we constantly need to be entertained. If slowing down a football game causes for this must attention and frustration, I wonder how much longer Americans will have the capability of just sitting still without being entertained?

Still on Strike

      Two whole weeks have gone by and students in the Chicago public school are still not in school. The Chicago teacher's union continues to strike in hope of receiving a contract that suits their needs. It was said that teachers would be in school by friday, however they now say the earliest would be Tuesday. Fortunately, a contract was made, and the union leaders described it as a "good contract", yet it is still not signed. Kevin Hughes, a delegate, stated that the union should take at least another day to review the contract. While teachers continue to focus on the strike, Mayor Rahm Emmanuel is disgusted by the whole situation. He believes the "children of Chicago are [being] played as pawns in an internal dispute within the union". He also continues to express that children in CPS are not receiving the education that "matches their potential". While the teachers in the CPS district certainly deserve a better contract, the students deserve to continue receiving an education. To add, parents of these children are not sure what/how to continue watching their kids when they usually would be in school. These teachers should continue to fight, but I do believe they should go back and teach. These students have been out of school for over a week, and there is a tentative contract at hand, there is no need for the teachers to not go back and teach.

       A strong American belief is to fight for what you want, and the teachers of the Chicago union are doing just that. However, if the teachers do not return to the classrooms soon, new precautions will be made, and the teachers will definitely not get what they want. Therefore, how far should the teachers continue going? Keep striking until they get all that they want? Or settle for now, and go back to the classrooms?